Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,112 Views)
Wolf Eagle
Member Avatar
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).

Posted Image
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If Spinosaurus was biped then it was also much heavier than 6 or 7 tons like how it is repeatedly assumed here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And you're basing that on what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Jun 30 2015, 05:25 AM
And you're basing that on what?
Quote:
 
Posted Image

At roughly the same length, its easy to see that the Baryonyx has a MUCH deeper belly. Its legs are also a LOT BIGGER, which add a considerable amount of weight. I wouldn't say the Baryonyx would be a buttload heavier, but it would definitely weight several tons more.


From "King" of the Theropods, page 65
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurus curls into a ball and rolls at t rex, using its sail to slice it in half like a buzzsaw.

Obvious mismatch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

That doesn't mean that a bipedal Spinosaurus would be heavier than a quadrupedal one as you originally claimed, merely that a hypothetical 15 meter Baryonyx might be heavier than a 15 meter Spinosaurus.

Although that said, a bipedal Spinosaurus may indeed be heavier than the quadrupedal model presented by Ibrahim et al. owing to the neck musculature that is implied by Cau's "pelican pose".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Jun 30 2015, 06:28 AM


Although that said, a bipedal Spinosaurus may indeed be heavier than the quadrupedal model presented by Ibrahim et al. owing to the neck musculature that is implied by Cau's "pelican pose".
But only by a small margin. Certainly not by "several tons".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Indeed, even combined with the (in my opinion) overall under-fleshed state of their skeleton we aren't looking at too much a weight increase. Maybe a tonne or two are the very most.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Jun 30 2015, 06:28 AM
@Dunkleosteus Gigas

That doesn't mean that a bipedal Spinosaurus would be heavier than a quadrupedal one as you originally claimed, merely that a hypothetical 15 meter Baryonyx might be heavier than a 15 meter Spinosaurus.

Although that said, a bipedal Spinosaurus may indeed be heavier than the quadrupedal model presented by Ibrahim et al. owing to the neck musculature that is implied by Cau's "pelican pose".
Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were close relatives so there's no much difference. But even if Baryonyx was bulkier than Spinosaurus anyway, a biped Spinosaurus would weight several tons more. We should never forget that Spinosaurus had some extra weight. On its back.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Except for the fact they're proportioned rather differently, and the fact spinosaurus was a rather gracile animal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Jun 30 2015, 05:57 PM
Except for the fact they're proportioned rather differently, and the fact spinosaurus was a rather gracile animal.
Posted Image
it needs at least 5 words
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dunkleosteus Gigas
Jun 30 2015, 07:56 PM
Ceratodromeus
Jun 30 2015, 05:57 PM
Except for the fact they're proportioned rather differently, and the fact spinosaurus was a rather gracile animal.
Posted Image
it needs at least 5 words
That's a Wikipedia scale... which are known to be highly innacurate.

And you know that the bulk of the Spinosaurus reconstruction in my Spino-Bary comparison is based on the bones, not on it being a quadruped. It might have been a little bulkier in life, but definitely not as bulky as Baryonyx.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it needs at least 5 words
I don't know how to make it appear on the post. I hope you have no problems loading it.
Attached to this post:
Attachments: barspi.jpg (48.51 KB)
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Jun 30 2015, 08:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Tell me, where either of those drawings made by people who actually study dinosaurs?

It doesn't matter what results you get with two random drawings. What matters is what results you get with the best, most accurate stuff out there. The reconstructions used in my comparisin aren't two random pics by random people smushed together. They where chosen because they are the most accurate we have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DarkGricer
Jun 30 2015, 08:31 PM
Tell me, where either of those drawings made by people who actually study dinosaurs?

It doesn't matter what results you get with two random drawings. What matters is what results you get with the best, most accurate stuff out there. The reconstructions used in my comparisin aren't two random pics by random people smushed together. They where chosen because they are the most accurate we have.
The drawing that I posted above was made by me. I chose two pictures to see the bulk difference between Baryonyx and Spinosaurus. You want me to chose different pictures and make it again?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
What I meant is whether the drawings used IN your picture where made by people who study dinosaurs, which they clearly are not.

What you could do is use Scott Hartman's Baryonyx and compare it to the new Spinosaurus, except I've already done that and you've already posted it here, and the results are pretty clear. Baryonyx is bulkier then Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.